Mayor Bill Courtright should secure concessions from the city’s public safety unions before imposing a commuter tax, the Greater Scranton Chamber of Commerce recommends in a letter to the mayor.

The chamber also says it is considering the mayor’s request to extend consultant Henry Amoroso’s contract for another six months, according to the letter sent to the mayor Tuesday and obtained by The Times-Tribune.

The chamber paid the $30,000 fee for the recovery-plan consultant that the strapped city could not afford. The fee put the business group at the table, and the letter reads as if it gets

a say in how the city should implement the plan.

Both chamber President Robert Durkin and Mr. Courtright said in separate phone interviews that the letter is not akin to the chamber tail wagging the city dog.

“I don’t see it that way at all,” said Mr. Courtright, noting he has a good relationship with the chamber.

Mr. Durkin agreed and said the chamber had stated from the start it would not direct Mr. Amoroso’s work in any way and has not done so. Mr. Amoroso issued his recovery plan July 2.

“We did not have undue direct influence on the development of the plan. We did not want people to think the chamber was hiring the consultant to tell the city what to do,” Mr. Durkin said.

Now, however, that the first thing the city has done out of the gate is introduce a commuter tax, the chamber’s letter simply makes “a public statement,” Mr. Durkin said. They ask the mayor to implement the recovery plan as he and Mr. Amoroso have said it must be done if it is to succeed — in total and not piecemeal.

And one of the things the recovery plan calls for is reopening union contracts to seek various concessions. But specifics regarding concessions have not been worked out, even as the city is on verge of adopting a commuter tax to fund pensions. The chamber believes such a tax is “premature” if enacted without a clear understanding of and commitment to concessions, states the letter.

“It is the view of the chamber that such details (on reopening contracts) have to be made clear in order to capture a complete picture of the whole strategy,” the letter states.

Tax on tap

City council is expected to vote tonight on adopting an ordinance authorizing a 0.75 percent Act 205 earned-income tax on certain commuters to raise $5.1 million a year to shore up the city’s severely distressed pension funds. However, a state bill, if enacted, would require the city to levy the same Act 205 earned-income wage tax on city residents. As the mayor and council members have opposed raising the city’s own wage tax, it’s not clear how the tax matter would be handled if the Act 205 amendment passes. The chamber thinks the city should not rush to impose a commuter tax, in absence of union concessions and the other questions.

“We recommend a more patient and measured approach to this action (an Act 205 tax), taking into account the need to examine issues involving the city’s collective bargaining agreements” and pending changes to state Act 205 pension law and Act 47 distressed municipalities law, the chamber letter states.

As for the chamber’s call for concessions before a commuter tax, Mr. Courtright said, “That’s their opinion.”

Mr. Courtright said he has had a few conversations, but no negotiations, with union representatives.

“Whatever we do with them is going to have to be negotiated because they have a contract through 2017,” Mr. Courtright said. “Negotiation is going to take time.”

Mr. Courtright said a commuter tax is necessary and that infusion alone won’t fund all of the city’s pension contributions.

Mr. Durkin said first imposing a commuter tax to help fund pensions would cede leverage the city might have in negotiating reopened contracts.

“It (a commuter tax) is a potential bargaining chip with the unions. Why would you give that away,” Mr. Durkin said. “We’re not looking to blame anybody or come on strong that we’re anti-union. We’re not. We’re simply saying the plan says ‘reopen the contracts.’ The reasonable thing might be to implement those things first.”

Mr. Courtright said his discussions with the unions did not involve the city enacting a commuter tax first as a condition of future concessions.

Amoroso returns?

As for the mayor’s request that the chamber again rehire Mr. Amoroso to continue his consulting work for the city, Mr. Durkin said the chamber’s consideration of that request was not a quid pro quo for the chamber’s recommendations. Mr. Amoroso’s work was strong but there is more to be done to implement the plan, the letter to the mayor says.

The chamber on Wednesday wrote to its previous donors and other businesses asking them to again contribute toward funding Mr. Amoroso’s $30,000 fee for another six months, Mr. Durkin said. This extension would have Mr. Amoroso help secure donations from nonprofit organizations, assist in union negotiations and on debt service issues, and develop an economic strategy moving forward, Mr. Durkin said.

The chamber also sent to its members on Wednesday a similar letter that made the same points and also listed the Amoroso report’s recommendations.

Meanwhile, the Act 205 commuter tax ordinance is expected to be the subject of a public council caucus tonight at 6 p.m. before council’s regular meeting at 6:30 p.m., when the ordinance is on the agenda for adoption.

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.